let's define "remote reservoir" dampers...

yes, Porsche 911s come from the factory with essentially a dry sump system. A scavenge pump in the small crank sump, and a 12 quart tank, and a pressure pump, plus coolers and oil/air sperators make up the system. Stock on the 70s and 80s versions classed in ITS and ITR.
 
Regarding dampers on cars originally equipped with RR versions, it seems to me that the concept of the original rule was to allow cars to upgrade dampers, but originally, there were no RRs. I think allowing cars originally equipped with RRs to upgrade with other RRs is in line with original philosophy. I know i'll get $hit for this, LOL.
 
I'd say to stay consistent:

1. Use the dry sump wording for RR shocks.

2. Make it clear this means OE/stock stuff ONLY. No OE equivalents. Isn't this what we do with dry sumps and crank fire? Those guys who have that stock can run it, but have to stay with the stock parts.

Flip is to do what Kirk says and what I agree with. One facet of what defines IT is essentially open suspension within the parameters of the stock suspension mounting points. I see no reason why remote reservoir, or triple adjustable, shocks are illegal. You can spend the same amount on double adjustable in body reservoir stuff.

Makes little sense to me banning those when one of the premises of the class is tune all you want on the suspension just don't move things.
 
Well I was the one who wrote the request and provided some of the information to get the changed in Touring. From a $$$ standpoint, the old rule just doesn't hold water anymore.

As far as the S2000 goes, the stock rear shocks are really short. It's an "in wheel" suspension design so the geometry is really compact. For race spring rate amounts of shock travel I don't think it's that big of an issue other than fewer options but for the amount of travel needed for a street car spring rates that's where the problems start to come into play.
 
I can tell you it was a lot cheaper to run the remote res shocks compared to the time and money to get the same results from a single. Cost is now such a wash it makes good sense to look at the rule again. I started to bring it up during the ITR creation but figured I would get shot. Count on one letter for!! I like the kinder, gentler Kirk.:023:
 
JimLill said:
Does the GCR need a general revision that says in effect when , for a specific car, an OEM off-the-showroom floor part or configuration conflicts with an item defined as not-allowed in the rules, that part shall be deemed as allowed. ??
Click to expand...

So by that logic ABS and traction control would be legal, on some but not all cars.
 
GKR_17 said:
So by that logic ABS and traction control would be legal, on some but not all cars.
Click to expand...

:blink: uh, no... just no.

JoshS said:
I don't see any reason to change the rule. There are plenty of IT-legal shock systems for the S2000, even though the stock ones have external reservoirs ... for example: http://www.autoanything.com/suspension-systems/61A3342A0A0.aspx?kc=ff2155
Click to expand...

"Sample Image Shown (Actual Part May Differ)" :p

I'll agree that there appears to be a few aftermarket dampers that do not have an external reservoir for the rear, but that's pretty scary considering how short the dampers are. Honda didn't engineer the OE parts that way for no reason... it's what is necessary for the given space and travel.

I certainly don't agree with every-one's opinion here, but they are appreciated nonetheless. At worst, it gives me a better idea of how to word my request when I e-mail it in.

So to clearly reiterate;

The rear suspension design of the Honda S2000 is of that which requires and external or remote reservoir damper due to space constraints. This is proven by the use of such parts as original equipment on the rear of the car. It is not my goal to create rule creep, provide a competition advantage to (the rear) of my vehicle, or to argue semantics.

cheers,
 
A couple thoughts on the rules:
1) Add a sentance to existing rule: "Stock OEM remote reservoir dampers are allowed"
or
2) "Dampers are free provided they have no more than 2 external adjustments"

Or 3
Anyone who can really tune a chassis with 3 or 4 way adjustable dampers should not be driving in IT. It's an entry level class remember?!

Last time I checked, 1980's vintage Formula Fords are still faster than any IT car (including ITR). Plus you get slicks and a real racing transmission. And you can run nationals.
Not fast enough? Try a DSR. Same good stuff plus downforce AND you get to rev to 11,000+ RPM. And still less costly than ITR...

Anyone who wants to learn to tune a chassis with multi-adjustable shocks should not do it in IT. The cars are too compromised by their street car origin and DOT race tires.

Tak
 
WHAT??? In what world is DSR cheaper than ITR? At least to be competitive, not a chance. It would be at least double what I have spent thus far to be as competitive in DSR.

I also don't really quite buy that IT classes are always "entry level." Look at the number of people here on these forums for whom IT is a destination, not a stepping stone. Heck, as you know, I spent a lot of time in other classes before coming to IT.
 
Well when the rule was written to eliminate RR shocks, Ohlin and Koni had not produced there integral body shocks. With those now on the market, the rule is obsolete as you can buy double adjustable shocks from Koni, Ohlin and Afco that have the resevior built into the body. So now you would have to rewrite the rule to exclude any externally adjustable shocks. Its all so stupid, the guy with money will always be able to buy a better mousetrap. Short of a spec shock rule, shocks should be free.
Chris Howard
 
I agree.

Suspension design and tuning is a key attribute of IT in my opinion. It is part of what makes it possible to go as fast as we do in underpowered (relative to current state of the art), limited preparation cars - and part of what makes IT so fun to me.

Allow any shock that mounts to stock pickup points.
 
shwah said:
Allow any shock that mounts to stock pickup points.
Click to expand...

Hello active dampers:026:

Seriously, re-examining the remote reservoir rule is probably a good thing. But that wording really opens the door to technology and costs well beyond what is reasonable.
 
Matt Rowe said:
Hello active dampers:026:

Seriously, re-examining the remote reservoir rule is probably a good thing. But that wording really opens the door to technology and costs well beyond what is reasonable.
Click to expand...
So what. That guy will spend 3x the rest of us no matter what the rules are. You can't stop him.
 
shwah said:
So what. That guy will spend 3x the rest of us no matter what the rules are. You can't stop him.
Click to expand...

Because active dampers would be such a significant jump in performance everyone would have to have them. You can't prevent someone from spending money, but you can keep that money from giving such an advantage it becomes a requirement.

To put another way, say someone comes out with a new brake pad material that costs 10,000 dollars per set but is 5 seconds a lap faster. Sure almost no one can afford them, but those that can will pretty much win every race. So now everyone needs them to be competitive.

Its the same old argument, there is no need to open the door wider than you have to. Remote reservoirs are one thing, open shocks are whole different animal.
 
Aren't there fuels right now that cost $30 per gallon that rumors state give 5-7hp gains in SM trim?
Aren't brand new Hoosiers, or any other tire fastest the first one or two heat cycles?
Can't you spend several times what it takes to build an 'all out' IT motor to parts bin blueprint and find the best flowing stock manifold and find the best flowing stock head?
Can't you spend 4x what a decent set of raceworthy wheels cost to get some that weigh half of what most light wheels weigh?
Couldn't someone go rent a full size wind tunnel and develop a more effective air-dam/splitter for thier IT car.

Of course they can. Some see these as outrageous, but people we race against today do some of those things. I'm glad they are there to race against, even if they do it differently than I do.

You can't legislate cost controls - unless you are proposing a claimer rule.

That said, go find me some active damping systems for any IT classified car. Heck go find any being used on ANY SCCA road race car. The active suspension concern is a bit far-fetched IMO, but is a good enough example that people can spend what they want to try and beat me in my home built race car.
 
You're missing the point with your examples. Spending a couple hundred extra on wheels for a couple tenths advantage or same thing with the rest of your examples. But you open up shocks to anything that mounts to the stock points and it won't be a difference in tenths. The difference will be measured in a lot more than that.

Go find active dampers for IT? Under an anything goes rule all we have to do is wait a couple years and someone will have them. It's like going back in time 10 years and asking for a Motec in a stock ECU box. They didn't exist then but we are still dealing with the fallout from that particular rule change. No one anticipated that effect when the rule was changed and the change wasn't even as open as you propose.

Allowing remote reservoirs now is one thing, but anything that mounts to the stock points is asking for trouble that no one can even guess at.
 
Ok, up front, I Do think that smart rules writing can help entice folks to keep their money. In the end, if the class is popular enough, they'll spend some money, but, rules can help a little. Anyhoooo.....

Regarding active suspensions, in classes where active dampers are legal, (I haven't read all the rulesets, but, I think that includes GT, Prod, etc.) how many are actually in use?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top